State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab & Sind Bank vs Mehar Singh on 4 June, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.356 of 2012
Date of institution : 22.03.2012
Date of decision : 04.06.2014
1. PUNJAB & SIND BANK, BRANCH OFFICE OLD BUS STAND,
JAITO ROAD, KOTAKAPURA.
2. ZONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB & SIND BANK, ZONAL OFFICE,
SADIQ CHOWK, FARIDKOT.
.......APPELLANTS-OPPOSITE PARTIES
VERSUS
MEHAR SINGH S/O SH. GURDIAL SINGH, R/O VILLAGE
BAGGEANA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT FARIDKOT.
......RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
First Appeal against the order dated
3.1.2012 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot.
Quorum :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri C.S. Sidhu, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 3.1.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Mehar Singh, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was partly accepted and the First Appeal No.356 of 2012. 2 opposite parties were directed to issue 'No Due Certificate' to him and to remove the lien of the Bank from the property mortgaged by him in favour of the Bank, free of cost, and for issuing appropriate directions to the concerned revenue authorities under intimation to him; and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation, on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.
2. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he availed of agricultural credit facility of Rs.1,00,000/- from opposite party No.1 for the purchase of inputs required for crops and other allied agricultural requirements. He used to avail the loan facility and used to repay the loan amount with interest after harvesting his crops. Lastly, he availed of that facility to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and for repaying that loan he paid Rs.1,13,300/- on 9.11.2009, regarding which receipt was duly issued to him. Thereafter this facility was refused to him; as a result of which he was put to great financial hardship. He had to arrange for the purchase of inputs etc. by borrowing the amount from other source, for which he had to pay interest more than Rs.15,000/-. In spite of the repayment of the loan, 'No due Certificate' was not issued in his favour by the opposite parties; which amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The same caused mental tension, mental agony and financial loss to him, for which he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. He was also entitled to the release of the mortgaged land for availing of the agricultural loan facility from some other financial Institution but the First Appeal No.356 of 2012. 3 opposite parties failed to release his land from mortgage. He prayed for the issuance of the following directions to the opposite parties:-
i) to issue 'No Due Certificate';
ii) to release the land mortgaged with them under crop loan
account No.RCL177;
iii) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation/damages on
account of mental agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by him.
3. The opposite parties filed joint written reply, in which they admitted that such agricultural loan facility was allowed to the complainant and he had been availing of the same after the harvesting of the crops. They also admitted that he had been repaying the borrowed amounts in respect of that facility and that last time for a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- he had paid Rs.1,13,300/- on 9.11.2009. They denied the other allegations made in the complaint and pleaded that one Surjit Singh, who was RDO in the Bank, committed fraud and FIR No.80 dated 5.5.2009 was got registered against him in Police Station Kotakapura under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B IPC. He had been making fictitious debits and fictitious credits in the loan accounts and had also bifurcated the amounts deposited by the borrowers towards the repayment of the loan amounts. It took more than six months to investigate the total fraud. Calculations were also made in respect of the loan amount of the complainant and after taking into consideration the amount of loan availed by him and the fictitious First Appeal No.356 of 2012. 4 debit entries made in his account by said RDO, it was found that a sum of Rs.1,45,581/- was due from him. Two debit entries of Rs.1,00,000/-, each, dated 18.2.2006 and 31.5.2006 were in his account but those were found to be fake and the Head Office had asked for the deletion of those entries. The facility of loan was not refused to the complainant and he was just asked to wait till the completion of the investigation. The complainant is liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.1,45,581/-, along with interest and only thereafter the 'No Due Certificate' can be issued to him. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf partly accepted the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant relied upon the debit and credit entries in his passbook Ex.C-2 in support of the claim made by him in the complaint but some of the entries thereof stand falsified by the Statement of Account Ex.R-2. Surinder Pal Singh, Manager, proved on record his affidavit Ex.R-3, in which he clearly stated that the entries in the passbook cannot be believed as those do not tally with the Statement of Account and the receipts proved on the record by the complainant are forged documents. The complainant relied upon First Appeal No.356 of 2012. 5 the receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5, which do not bear the stamp of the Bank and are forged documents. No such amounts, as mentioned in those receipts, were deposited by the complainant and the fictitious entries were made in the passbook either by the complainant himself or some unscrupulous official of the Bank. Therefore, the complainant cannot make use of those entries and it was wrongly concluded by the District Forum that all the amounts due from him in respect of the agricultural credit facility had been paid by him. When the false entries came to the notice of the Bank, it made the re-calculations and on those re-calculations and as depicted in the Statement of Account Ex.R-2, it was found that a sum of Rs.1,45,581/- was still due from the complainant regarding the said facility. Therefore, he was not entitled to 'No Due Certificate' nor he was entitled to get the land released from mortgage. The District Forum committed an illegality while recording the findings in his favour and those are liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that after discussing in detail the evidence produced by both the sides, it was correctly concluded by the District Forum that all the amounts borrowed by the complainant in respect of the agricultural credit facility had been repaid by him with interest, regarding which the entries were made in the passbook and those stand corroborated by the receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5. The complainant is not to suffer if the corresponding entries were not made by the officials of the Bank in the Statement of Account Ex.R2. First Appeal No.356 of 2012. 6 No illegality was committed by the District Forum by placing reliance on the evidence produced by the complainant and recording findings in his favour on the basis of that evidence.
8. For proving the allegations stated in the complaint the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.C-1. The deposition so made by him further stands supported by the entries of the passbook Ex.C-2 and the receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5. To rebut that evidence, the opposite parties proved on record the affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Makkar, Senior Manager, Ex.R-1, which is just the written reply given by the opposite parties which has been given the form of an affidavit. The deponent has not specifically deposed about the facts and no reliance can be placed on such like affidavit. They also relied upon the Statement of Account Ex.R-2 in support of their contention that false debit entries were made in the passbook and for supporting that contention they proved on record the affidavit of Surinder Singh Gill, Senior Manager, Ex.R-3. In that affidavit he stated that the entries of the passbook do not tally with the Statement of Account and, as such, those cannot be believed. He also stated that the receipt Ex.C-4 is forged and fictitious and the amount mentioned therein was never deposited by the complainant in the Bank. He supported the stand of the opposite parties by deposing therein that the sum of Rs.1,45,581/- is still due from the complainant.
9. We wonder how the opposite parties are claiming that the sum of Rs.1,45,581/- is still due from the complainant when such a First Appeal No.356 of 2012. 7 position is not depicted in the Statement of Account Ex.R-2? Such a Statement of Account is being made by the Bank official and on the preparation thereof the complainant has no role or control. The entries in the passbook are made by the officials of the Bank. The opposite parties have not examined the concerned cashier for proving that those entries were not made by him. These entries cannot be ignored merely on the ground that those do not tally with the Statement of Account, in the absence of any evidence that those are forged and fabricated.
10. For proving the correctness of the entries of the passbook, the complainant proved on record the receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5. It has wrongly been contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that these receipts do not bear the stamp of the Bank. All these three receipts not only bear the stamp of the Bank but these contain the signatures of the Bank official and the amount so deposited; which has entered in the blanks of the stamp by the official of the Bank itself.
11. On the basis of all this evidence it was correctly concluded by the District Forum that the agricultural loan facility availed of by the complainant already stands cleared and that he is entitled to 'No Due Certificate' and the release of his land from mortgage. There is no ground for upsetting those well reasoned findings. We find that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly.
12. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be First Appeal No.356 of 2012. 8 remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum and the appellants/opposite parties.
13. The arguments in this case were heard on 30.5.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER June 04, 2014.
Bansal